E.—l.

Board. It was evidently intended that the local Magistrate should be the moderator, as it were, as well as the mouthpiece of the Court. The person nominated by the appellant was also a Stipendiary Magistrate, and one of a higher standing than the local Stipendiary Magistrate ; moreover, he was himself an old teacher, and, presumably, inclined towards the appellant's side of the question ; and, although no objection was made at the time, the Board felt that the appearance of Dr. McArthur, as a member of such a Court, was, to say the least, certainly most unseemly and should not have been sanctioned. Clause 21 of the Act says that no counsel shall be heard on either side. This, again, was a distinct disadvantage to the Board, as the gentleman who appeared for the appellant holding a degree of LL.B. was to all intents and purposes a barrister and solicitor, although he had not been actually called to the bar. On the other hand, Dr. McArthur objected to the Board's representative consulting with its solicitor during the hearing of the case. One ground of complaint against Mr. Sturrock was his refusal (or neglect) to live in the residence attached to the school. On this point, Dr. McArthur, in his written judgment, says, "In my opinion it is advisable that the teacher's residence should be occupied by the master, and that it is only fair that respondents' request as to residence therein should be acceded to." In this respect, therefore, he supported the contention of the Board. Again, in reference to paragraph 5 of the Board's statement in defence, Dr. McArthur says, " While, in my opinion, there is nothing in the inspectorial reports to justify the dismissal of the appellant, yet I consider a higher state of efficiency might have been shown after a career of nine years." Now, the inspectorial reports referred to in Dr. McArthur's "judgment" furnish the following facts, which he entirely ignored : During the three years preceding the appeal Mr. Sturrock presented in Standards V. and VI. (which are taught by himself) 115 scholars, of whom 31 (or 27 per cent.) failed. During the same years the Blenheim Girls' School presented 149 scholars in the same two standards, and of these 17 (or 11 per cent.) failed. This inferiority in the results of the boys' school was one of the causes which led to the action of the Committee in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Sturrock. Another cause of the dissatisfaction of the Committee was the contrast between the want of success of Mr. Sturrock's candidates for scholarships as compared with the success of candidates from the girls' school. During the same three years the Blenheim Boys' School sent up only 5 candidates, none of whom gained a scholarship, neither did any one of them gain the proportion of marks necessary to qualify him to hold a scholarship ; and during the same period 20 candidates were presented from the girls' school, and 14 of these qualified by gaining the requisite proportion (60 per cent.) of the total marks. In another way the comparison is even more remarkable. In the year 1900 there were 20 candidates for the Board's scholarships. Blenheim Boys' School sent up 2, who occupied the fourteenth and twentieth places respectively in the order of merit. Blenheim Girls' School supplied 8 candidates, who occupied the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth places. In 1901 there were 20 candidates; no candidates appeared from the boys' school, but the girls' school sent up 9, who were placed in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth places. In 1902 there were 12 candidates altogether. The Blenheim Boys' School contributed 3 candidates, who were placed in the eighth, eleventh, and twelfth places. The Blenheim Girls' School also sent up 3 candidates, who occupied the second, third, and ninth places. This want of success was the more deplored by the Committee since it contrasted so strongly with the condition of the school while it was under the control of Mr. Sturrock's predecessor, when the Blenheim Boys' School nearly always secured all the available scholarships. So much was this the case that the Board established special scholarships for country schools only, as it was found that no schools had much chance in open competition with the Blenheim Boys' School under Mr. Lucas's management. The facts given above show how lamentably the school has fallen away from its former high state of efficiency. Yet, with all these facts before it, the finding of the Court of Appeal (as expressed by Dr. McArthur) was, " There was nothing to justify the dismissal of the Appellant." At a meeting of the Board, held after the award of the Court was announced, the following resolution was passed, and forwarded to the Department: " That under the late Mr. Lucas the Blenheim Boys' School was the best school in the district. That under Mr. Sturrock the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Standards in the boys' school have fallen to the thirteenth, and the Fifth and Sixth Standards, taught entirely by him, to the seventeenth place out of nineteen schools, as per Inspector's evidence. In the late appeal case the Court held that ' a higher state of efficiency might have been shown after a career of nine years, but there is nothing to justify a dismissal of the appellant' (Mr. Sturrock). The Board is puzzled to know how low this school must fall before it can be accorded the support of the Court in its efforts to restore the school to its proper efficiency." The results obtained at the boys' school as a whole during the years referred to were not bad, the large number in the lower standards, with the teaching of which Mr. Sturrock had little or nothing to do, concealing to a great extent the weakness of the two upper standards, which were entirely taught by himself. This is the only excuse that the Board can find for the extraordinary decision of the Court of Appeal, and it cannot be regarded as remarkable that the Committee of these schools, who were perfectly well acquainted with the particulars given above, should have thought it most desirable that a radical change should be effected, nor that the Board should have acceded to their request for the removal of Mr. Sturrock. The Board, feeling that the award of the Court of Appeal, if undisputed, was fraught with the most mischievous consequences, not only to this district but to the cause of education throughout the whole colony, took counsel's opinion upon the case, and it was ultimately agreed between counsel on either side that if the Board would continue to pay Mr. Sturrock (without prejudice), a case would be agreed upon for statement for the decision of the Supreme Court. This was done, and after many delays the case came before the Court, and was again decided against the Board. This decision, however, was upon points of law only—the real merits of the case, as between the Board and the head teacher, were not dealt with by the Supreme Court. Although the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case was not received until the 4th March, 1904, and therefore should not, under ordinary circumstances, be reviewed in this report,

86